Keeping bombers behind bars

Page Tools

There is understandable outrage that Idris, a key figure in the Bali bombings, should have the charges against him dropped; that a man who has not merely confessed to a central role in the murder of 202 people but rejoiced in it, should be able to walk away from his wicked crimes without conviction or punishment. It is an affront to the memory of those who died and the hundreds injured, and an insult to the work of Indonesian police in bringing the Bali bombers before the courts.

The problem with the case against Idris and the more than 30 others already convicted over the bombings is that they were all charged under anti-terrorism laws that did not exist when the bombings occurred on October 12, 2002. The Indonesian constitution forbids retrospective charges. Accordingly, Indonesia's constitutional court last month decided that it had been illegal to charge the Bali bombers under the terrorism laws.

It seemed clear that new charges - such as murder and arson - would have to be laid against those Bali bombers who had yet to appear in court. What was not clear - and is still not - is the implication of the ruling for those already convicted under the anti-terrorist laws. Some senior members of the Indonesian Government and the judiciary declared that the convictions would stand because the constitutional court's ruling would apply only in future. This never sounded more than a pious hope; after all, if a legal process is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional whenever it occurred. However, the Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, seemed inclined to accept the assurances, initially downplaying the constitutional court's ruling as a technicality.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

The constitutional court's judgement clearly made the prosecutors cautious at Idris's trial which was by then under way. Though Idris was accused of planning, preparing and executing the Bali attacks, the prosecutors did not seek the death penalty or even life in prison, but 10 years in jail. And that is what Idris got - not for the Bali charges, which were thrown out, but for his role in a later attack on the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta.

The Idris ruling has fuelled Australian concern that the other Bali bombers may successfully appeal against their convictions. Canberra is seeking fresh assurances from Indonesia that the bombers will not escape punishment. However, the Indonesian Government's course is not clear. It may be able to amend its constitution to shore up the existing convictions. If not, then, presumably, there must be fresh charges and new trials for those already convicted. The issue is complicated by ambiguity in Indonesian law about double jeopardy which might prevent people facing different charges for the same acts. Australia, however, believes this should not be a problem.

The difficulties created by the ruling of the constitutional court are substantial. However, Indonesia deserves Australia's confidence after the vigorous way it pursued the Bali bombers and brought them to court. Having got them behind bars, there is no reason to doubt Indonesia's determination to keep them there.

Longer terms, better government

The term of Federal Parliament is supposed to be no more than three years. In practice, it is substantially less. Since the first Federal Parliament opened with great ceremony in Melbourne's Exhibition Building on May 9, 1901 there have been no fewer than 40 parliaments. That means an average term of two years and seven months, less if you deduct the months between one parliament being dissolved and the start of the next. Then the figure drops to about two years and four months. Short-term parliaments are an invitation to short-term thinking. They are inimical to stability and continuity.

Not only are Australia's parliaments too short but elections for the House of Representatives can be held at the whim of the government. The rules set only a maximum term. So we have drawn-out election speculation - repeated questions from the media, repeated evasions from the Prime Minister, John Howard. Happily, the election cycle has meshed with the Olympic cycle. For a blessed two weeks, Australians are being spared Mr Howard's ducking and weaving while they get on with the serious business of counting medals.

The Federal Government says it accepts the merit of longer terms. The Minister for Finance and Administration, Nick Minchin, has lately reiterated his preparedness to negotiate with Labor about a four-year term for the House of Representatives. However, there are two sticking points, just as there were during the 1988 referendum on this issue. Labor wants fixed terms for both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and it wants the Senate's term cut to four years. In 1988 the Coalition - then in opposition - saw these proposals as a threat to the power and independence of senators who enjoy a fixed six-year term. The Coalition fiercely opposed the referendum proposition and it was lost by more than two votes to one.

However, Senator Minchin now says he can "see a good basis for ... getting a good outcome" on the four-year term, regardless of whether the Coalition is in government or in opposition. Labor should take what is on the table. Change is long overdue. Indeed, it is now more than 20 years since NSW moved from three- to four-year terms (and, subsequently, fixed four-year terms). A four-year term may not be all that Labor wants, but it would still be a very welcome reform.